M.Parimala v. The District Collector, South Arcot Vallallar District, Cuddalore & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22.06.2009CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAMW.A.No.1386 of 2004 M.Parimala.. Appellant/Petitioner-vs-1. The District Collector, South Arcot Vallallar District, Cuddalore.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur, Trichy District.

The Tahsildar, Perambalur Taluk, Perambalur, Trichy District... Respondents/RespondentsWrit Appeal filed U/Clause 15 of Letters Patent against theorder made in W.P.No.14175 of 1995 dated 16.7.2002. WP No.14175/1995: Writ Petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to theproceedings made by the 3rd respondent made in Na.Ka.A.1.111794/93dated 16.11.1994 and quash the same and consequently direct therespondents to grant flood Relief of Rs.50,000/- from Hon'ble PrimeMinister's Relief Fund and Rs.10,000/- from the Hon'ble ChiefMinister's Relief Fund to the petitioner for the death of her husbandM.Murugan due to the Floor caused in River Vellar on 8.12.1993 in Thittakkudi Taluk, South Arcot District like granted to the similarlyaffected 7 families of Kattumannarkoil and Tittakudi Taluks on15.8.1995.For Appellant: Mr.A.Meenakshi SundaramFor Respondents: Mr.M.Dhandapani, Spl.G.P.,:Assisted by M.P.Gurunathan, G.A./RR1 to 3* * * * * https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J U D G M E N T(Delivered by PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J.)This is a claim for compensation for the death of theappellant's husband, Murugan, in the floods caused in Vellar river.

The learned single Judge was of the opinion that since thepetitioner had not satisfied the minimum requirement, it is notpossible to grant her relief since the compensation should be givenfrom public funds.

The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitionersubmitted that there is no dispute on the side of the respondentsthat those who had suffered on account of the floods were givencompensation of Rs.50,000/- from the Prime Minister's Relief Fund andRs.10,000/- from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund and 7 families of Kattumannar koil and Thittakudi Taluk were awarded compensation onthe Independence Day, i.e. on 15.8.1995 and there was nojustification for denying the petitioner her compensation. Thelearned counsel referred to the complaint filed by the VillageAdministrative Officer and the communication forwarded by the SubInspector himself to show that the cause of death of Murugan isapparent and admitted by the officials mentioned above and therefore, there was no justification to deny the petitioner her relief.

The learned Government Pleader submitted that because of thehighly decomposed state of the body, it was not possible to ascertainthe cause of death and only if it was proved beyond reasonable doubtthat the person died on account of the floods, the survivors areentitled to compensation.

We are unable to appreciate the submissions made on behalf ofthe State. The complaint and the letter from the Sub Inspector areenough to justify the entitlement of the appellant. On 9.12.1993,even before the order giving compensation to the afflicted familieswas passed, the Village Administrative Officer has clearly writtenthat Murugan was carried away in the floods and met his death. TheSub Inspector has also stated that it was only after ascertaining thereason for the death that the body was handed over to the relativesand that he was carried away in the floods. It is true that post-mortem was not conducted. When the cause of death is admitted in theabove documents, the post-mortem is only a formality. This is notlike other cases of unnatural death, this is a case of death due to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ natural calamity. The post-mortem was impossible because of thephysical condition of the body. The cause of death was also known. Inthese peculiar circumstances, it is not just to deny the petitionerher relief insisting on technicalities. There may be cases where theconduct of the post-mortem will be essential and the person claimingthe relief may not be able to justify her or his stand without theresult of the post-mortem examination. But, this is not the casehere, in view of the two official communications that we haveextracted above. These would clearly show that the reason for Murugan's death was drowning in the floods.

We think the State ought to have come forward and given hercompensation without delaying the matter unnecessarily. The reasonthat the State had come forward to grant this relief to the afflictedfamilies was because in most of the cases, the bread winner had diedon account of the floods and therefore, the State ought to have beenreasonable in this case. We, therefore, feel that this is a fit casefor award of interest also.